Elizabeth Warren

I have to say, you have now switched your argument from what it was going to do to your business, to what it is going to do to the economy.

What I think we keep hearing from the Restaurant Association is that if the minimum wage goes up, that jobs will go down.

Despite the speculation, what the numbers show in terms of what employers actually did is that we are not seeing job losses.

If we just started in 1960... the minimum wage today would be about $22 an hour.

Could you just speak very briefly to the potential impact of these cuts on your ability to enforce our Postal laws and protect our seniors from being scammed?

Are you moving toward trying to find a way to be able to disclose this to the AARP, or is that avenue right now just cut off?

I just want to know, have you reached out, have you talked to the regulators about whether or not they, in fact, are examining the banks on this very question of how they deal with these scams when this money is moving through the American…

Some of the money undoubtedly is cash and FedEx, but we just had two witnesses who sat here and every single thing they described went through the American banking system.

I very much take the point around this that perhaps our Federal agencies need to rethink how they evaluate this sort of stepped-in scam.

I would just be grateful, as we go forward, to be able to learn more about this and find out what is being done at the regulatory side, and it is for all of the scams here that attack our seniors.

If someone showed up here and said, 'I am going to steal $3 billion from seniors in America,' I think there would be a lot of people pretty upset about it.

I hope there is a special circle of hell for the people who prey on our seniors in this way.

I think we could probably--get the police to respond.

But if it happens gradually----it does not have the visibility and the powerful impact.

I'm very concerned about the revolving door that exists between the SEC and the private sector.

The American people deserve a Congress that worries less about helping big banks and more about helping regular people who have been cheated on mortgages, on credit cards, on student loans, on credit reports.

I think there has been a lot of transparency, and you have won widespread praise for both your balance and your judgment.

From the way I see how other agencies are treated, I see nothing here but a filibuster threat against Director Cordray as an attempt to weaken the consumer agency.

A bank that launders drug money or terrorists' money can be shut down, and individuals in the bank can be banned from banking.

The United States Government takes money laundering very seriously.

So you just said to the Justice Department, 'You are on your own in figuring this out'?

And who is responsible for making a determination about whether to revoke the charter?

If I can, could I just ask a little more of a review question about this?

So whether or not you could revoke the charter depended on what the Justice Department did.

In your opinion, how many billions of dollars do you have to launder for drug lords before somebody says, 'We are shutting you down'?